Increase even more the number of lawyers per inhabitant, and top it off with the highest number of police, military, security agencies, and journalists like Mr. Benjamin J. Stein.
Think again. The idea is to locate suspicious activity. Not using credit card is the first trigger to show that you are a potential terrorist, - other triggers follow.
Many thanks shylock0 for taking your time to read my comment and responding. Here is my response:
shylock0 wrote: "This makes a couple of interesting assumptions: 1) Women do not like sex 2) All porn involves multiple-penetration 3) Pornography inherently involves children 4) All pornography is forced"
Wrong on all the four points: 1) Sex and Porn are two distinctly different things. Porn being only a depiction of specific sexual acts in film or graphic format. And there is NO presumption of whether or not men or women like or do not like sex.
2) Again inaccurate since saying "heroin is a drug" does not mean that the term drug is exhausted by heroin. One has a multiplicity of choices like LSD, Opium, Ecstasy etc, which constitute a subset of drugs, just like "multiple-penetration", facial, deepthroat, bondage, etc etc etc etc constitute subsets of what goes by the name of Pornography.
Your use of the term "multiple-penetration" seems like a sanitised way of describing a particularly degrading and non-enjoyable activity for the person (whether male or female) who is "performing" it, and may or may not be distasteful/enjoyable for viewer. In that way it pairs well with the term Ecstasy (or Lucky Strike if we take an example of a cigarette brand) which are just sanitised words created to hide something different underneath. (I view that phenomenon as newspeak).
3) Again wrong. No such presumption. I specifically mention children AND adults in my post. Legality or illegality of children in Porn is also not my concerns in the present context, since I do not identify illegal with immoral/harmful/evil. Smoking and tobacco industry are perfectly legal but remain harmful.
Though it IS my presumption that most of the widely sought after porn involves children, followed by different degrees of degrading porn like deepthroat, facials, bondage, racist, m-p, etc etc. How do I know the extent of all this. Answer is I do not know, but simply presume, which may be wrong, but I will need enough credible evidence to change my idea.
4) Here we seem to have a different opinion of what is force. Yes I do consider all porn to be forced, whether by brute force or by force of money. But this is a matter of opinion, which we can debate perhaps some other time. I also make a distinction between erotics and porn, but I must admit that I do not have a mathematically accurate line to distinguish between the two.
Arguments: "Let's consider a few other arguments. 1) Women usually make 10 times as much, and up to 100 times as much, per sex scene as the male actors do. 2) Female porn stars are some of the richest people in Los Angeles. 3) On top of that, many use their income to pursue higher education, and often return as executives in the industry."
All the above three do not look like arguments to me. They are more like value statements. Since I do not accept money, fame or an executive position to be the measure of achievement, these are irrelevant for me. I could become a multi-millionaire by smuggling "finest quality heroin" or "arms" from XYZ to ABC, calculating - how it will sit with individual laws in different countries, - or its links with some other goals, BUT will that be worth doing it? (remember Oliver North, John Poindexter, Ronald Reagan etc.) Not according to my value system.
In this case we can hardly make a rational discussion since in my view, values are not necessarily based on logic and rationality. Since you might see some other presumption in my talk about value, let me assure you that by referring to those values, I do not intend to say those values make my position better or more ethical. It is just different.
4) "Why shouldn't women be given that opportunity?" Again I do not accept degradation as an "opportunity", another sanitised word to replace some not-so-nice-looking word. Besides this "opportunity" is nothing very new. Sure the scale, scope and "level of payment" has changed in accordance with the law of demand and supply, but in itself this "opportunity" is nothing new, and in accordance with the laws of demand and supply and higher stakes, the extent of brute force has increased not decreased in recent past in my opinion.
5) "Forced pornography, like forced prostitution, is a thing of the past." Hardly true, even if I take *force* to be only brute physical force. Perhaps you are looking at this only in terms of what you see in the US. Even in the US a lot is hidden, but it may be better than many other places in the world. Though many in Northern Europe would believe that we have a better situation when it comes to protect women from forced pornography and prostitution. Though I do not have any statistics to show the exact extent, I am sure that it not a thing of the past. BBC has in the past few years shown a number of documentaries looking at women smuggled from Eastern Europe and forced into porn industry and prostitution.
6) "Women might be led to believe that they don't have other choices, but that's their fault, not ours." Actually I was not thinking about fault, since it is a much more complex issue requiring a complex approach. All I was trying to say in my post was to also look at the issue not only from the position of the viewer, but from the point of view of the "performer" too.
"The argument put forth by kedi is the same feminist argument set forth in the 1970s. The world has changed since then. Though pornography remains potentially exploitative (and therefore "evil"), tobacco is intrinsically exploitative. "
The ideas put forth by shylock0 seem to be influenced by the PR and propaganda of the Porn industry, which is at least as ruthless as Tobacco industry, if not more.
The points in two previous sentences are only evaluative statements, which simply try to put each other in a pre-defined framework. Opinion versus Opinion.
Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker of English, and may fail to put forth my ideas in proper English, which may lead to mis-interpretation. Please do try to ask/clarify what I mean before flaming or biting.
is porn evil or not?
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Most of the posts I have read so far seem to believe that porn is not evil, basically because it does not harm or kill.
I think that view is based on taking into consideration only the "viewer" side of porn.
I tend to think that porn is evil/wrong/harmful basically if looked at from the point of view of people who are forced (sometimes with brute physical force, but often with force and power of money) in "performing" it.
How many of us would like a couple of dildos/dicks stuffed into all of our holes, and cum showering our faces? On top of that these so-called actors are supposed show that they like and enjoy it.
The degradation meted out not only on children but also adults in pornography (which is different from eroticism) is worse than being killed, because it kills one again and again for the rest of ones life.
That some people enjoy seeing all that and are not killed watching pornography is perhaps a less relevant point.
Quantum Physicist and Philosopher David Bohm, born in Pennsylvania in 1917 died in England in 1992, a contemporary of Einstein and a student of Openheimer, wrote what many physicists consider to be a model textbook on quantum mechanics in 1950.
According to this web site: http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/ 0/26DAA D8A936EA8D680256816005EB1D6/ Bohm was also the founder of MITs DIALOGUE project, which somehow seems to be linked to or behind the OpenCourseware project.
"The ability to perceive or think differently is more important than the knowledge gained." David Bohm.
Excerpts from an interview with David Bohm:
Omni: Yet you've said that quantum mechanics doesn't provide a clear picture of nature. What do you mean?
Bohm: The main problem is that quantum mechanics gives only the probability of an experimental result. Neither the decay of an atomic nucleus nor the fact that it decays at one moment and not another can be properly pictured within the theory. It can only enable you to predict statistically the results of various experiments.
Physics has changed from its earlier form, when it tried to explain things and give some physical picture. Now the essence is regarded as mathematical. It's felt the truth is in the formulas. Now they may find an algorithm by which they hope to explain a wider range of experimental results, but it will still have inconsistencies. They hope that they can eventually explain all the results that could be gotten, but that is only a hope.
Omni: How did the founders of quantum mechanics initially receive your book Quantum Theory?
Bohm: In the Fifties, when I sent it around to various physicists-including [Niels] Bohr, Einstein, and [Wolfgangl Pauli--Bohr didn't answer, but Pauli liked it. Einstein sent me a message that he'd like to talk with me. When we met he said the book had done about as well as you could do with quantum mechanics. But he was still not convinced it was a satisfactory theory.
susano_otter wrote: With blatant disregard for Godwin's Law, I'll bite:
Good, that is what I expected and wished. I dislike Hitler as much as any average human being.
"Why on earth would I want to thank Hitler for that? If he hadn't started his genocidal campaign, Einstein would have been free to exercise his great intellect in Germany, remaining intimately connected to the thriving and lively European physics community. Hitler's bigotry and warmongering shattered this community, drove some of the best minds in Physics to the ends of the earth, disrupted their communication with each other... and that's not the worst of it:"
Good, No one should thank Hitler. I only wrote that to show the pointlessness of contention of 5KVGhost when he said: "Einstein's work was also instrumental, of course, in giving the US an early lead on the development of atomic weapons."
If "...in giving the US an early lead" was the key, then one should thank who caused that lead possible. Since I do not believe in specualtive statements in history (like if Hitler would not have been born, like if King of England had not been so opperessive, like if Sweden had developed nuclear bomb, like if Kennedy was not asasinated, like if Reagan had not survived the assasination attempt, etc etc), the ususal cause and effect ideas do not apply in history.
"On another note, the U.S. today is no healthier than Nazi Germany under Hitler? What tipped you off? Was it the genocidal death camps scattered across our heartland?"
This is where I feel like biting but will not bite.
How about taking a look at Germany right before Hitler got elected? He got elected with more votes, not less as in present day US. He also could increase his votes from 14 to 38 million after being in power for a year or so. I am not suggesting that Bush is Hitler, but pointing to a direction things may take. BTW Einstein left Germany already before Hitler came to power and started his genocidal campaign.
What I was and am trying to say is that Germany was "unhealthy for the world as a whole" then just like the US is "unhealthy for the world as a whole" now, because of not what they did to their own citizens (which is not the current discussion), but what and why they are doing to the world. Yes I do think present Germany is more healthy for the world than present US.
I think we will talk to each other again when a more relevant topic comes up.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a native speaker of English, so my experessions may not be conveying what I really mean. I will only have to try again and again to expalin what I mean, even though that is not a guarantee of calrifying everything.
5KVGhost wrote: "Einstein's work was also instrumental, of course, in giving the US an early lead on the development of atomic weapons. Had history gone differently that advantage may have belonged to Germany, the USSR, or even Japan. Given the balance of power and the regimes in charge at the time that would have been rather unhealthy for the world as a whole."
I don't agree with the underlying belief that US was and is healthier.
This line of discussion is interesting but will be deemed off topic by the rest, but I would make one suggestion: How about thanking Hitler for taking power in January 1933, thus compelling Einstein not to return to Germany? Wouldn't that be acknowledgment of Hitler's contribution to "civilization". Or should one also thank FBI for not tightening the screw enough on him after the war, so as to force him to leave again to somewhere else? Stories about "relationship" of Einstein and the FBI have been posted earlier on/.
Mr_Dyqik wrote: "Einstein's first Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect, which clarified the basic physics of how metals interact with light, and how electrons behavein materials. These results go straight into semiconductor physics, and electron guns in CRTs. Are the TV and semiconductor device industries a big enough return?"
Big enough return for whom? For society/humanity yes, for companies who made money out of it without paying for the findings yes, but for Einstein not in monetary terms. I wonder if he could have got any funding for testing his theories in the beginning of last century.
Thanks for educating me on wider uses of Einstein's work though.
Since you seem to argue that "Also, possibly no nuclear power,.." I have a question: could one argue and calculate the flip side of the nuclear power and blame Einstein for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, other smaller accidents and effects hidden from public eye? No Einstein - No Hiroshima - No Chernobyl. I am not stating anything here, just posing a simple question.
dcollins wrote: Einstein's most important results had no research investment funding it whatsoever. Hence, it does not serve as a counterexample to an assertion about "research investment".
The point I was trying to make is that if Einstein had had to justify his research on the basis of producing greater value, he would possibly had not got the funding if he rquired it, since there was no direct possibility of making money out of it then.
In my original post, as I admitted in another post, I did not correctly read Prof. Robert Laughlin's article, who is actually saying what I wanted to say.
AC wrote: "I think you have slightly missed the point of that sentence. The sentence is pointing out that research for research's sake isn't very welcome in the CORPORATE environment where a greater return on investment is desired. (The point being, that science is BECOMING too corporate-centric as opposed to more "expanding the boundaries of human knoweldge" centric as it was in the past.) So, you aren't really in dispute."
Thanks. I re-read the article and realised that you are right. Thanks for pointing that out.
BTW. on searching I found that Prof. Robert B. Laughlin received a Noble Prize in Physics in 1998 [http://large.stanford.edu/rbl/index.htm] [http:/ /www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1998/]
From the article: "For a research investment to be justified, it must produce value equal to or greater than that of the investment."
I find this extremely questionable. History is full of scientific discoveries and ideas which were not able to produce equal or greater value for long time. Can anyone enlighten me about the value produced by Einstein's research?
This is great news. Though as many others have already commented, he won't give up, money is just too sweet.
But let us tighten the screw not only on him, but those who might replace him, and actually many others who have not yet become as well known as him. Let us find them all and repeat the same tactics, only at a larger scale.
So don't wait, and don't presume someone else will do it,...... sign him for more.
In the last conference - Security issues
on
eGovOS Running Again
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I attended the last conference, it was fantastic.
In the sesssion "Security of Open Source Software" Mary Ann (Oracle) raised the point, supported by others, that "more eyes" does not mean "more experienced eyes".
She argued that the fact that Open Source has more eyes looking into the source code does not make it more secure since these eyes are not necessarilly experienced in security issues.
This point may seem logical but is not correct. I think if we take the example of Linux, the "experienced eyes" focused on its security are still more than what could be possible in the confines of one single company. Windows may have all the "experienced eyes" employed by Microsoft, but Linux has many more "experienced eyes" who may or may not be working for IBM, HP, RedHat, etc etc, in addition to Hackers at Large.
>> "A Perhaps the Americans should worry more about getting a more open *Government* before worrying about getting more open *software*. Even the Penguin can't do much against a Total Information Awareness-empowered nanny state."
Though I agree with you in pointing this out to Americans, I think it is not very wise to put different initiatives and ideas in opposition to each other. To worry about *open software* need not be contraposed to worry about *open Government*.
In this particular case I tend to believe that a concern for *free and open source software* is actually a step towards a more open Government anywhere not just in the US, especially so if one thinks in terms of ethical motivations behind free and open source movements.
From http://www.spywareinfo.com/ "Some weeks ago, the developer for the Phoenix browser posted to the project's message boards that they had been contacted by Phoenix Tech about their use of their "trademark". Apparently Phoenix Tech claims to have trademarked the word "Phoenix".
I emailed Phoenix Tech to ask them under what name and/or number did they have the word "phoenix" registered since I could not find it at the patent office. I asked them what legal actions they intended to take in regards to the Phoenix browser. I asked them what they intended to do about all of these organizations, who also use the word "phoenix". Would you be shocked to discover that they refused to answer?"
rseuhs wrote >>In industrial countries where labour is expensive, like Germany and Japan, Linux is making inroads on desktops and has already marginalized Windows on Servers: Japan [securityspace.com] Germany [securityspace.com] >>
The data available at [securityspace.com] shows only the the share of Apache, not Linux - at leat I could not find it.
"There is a great deal of burnout being created by users demanding features in software that the developer isn't being paid for, too. KDE has mostly escaped this thus far, however there is some speculation that GNOME has more momentum because it's the underdog. Let's hope these two projects can continue to bring great things to the Linux desktop."
I think KDE and GNOME should come to a gentelmen's agreement: ONE for Geeks and Nerds, but the other for mere mortals like me. That way both teams can meet the expectations of their "own" users better.
Slashdot Mirror
Increase even more the number of lawyers per inhabitant, and top it off with the highest number of police, military, security agencies, and journalists like Mr. Benjamin J. Stein.
Emmitt Smith asked:
"How can it trigger anything when they have no way of identifying who paid with the cash?"
for example by crosschecking individuals (social security numbers) who are alive and yet make no purchases using credit cards, bank cards or checks.
Think again. The idea is to locate suspicious activity. Not using credit card is the first trigger to show that you are a potential terrorist, - other triggers follow.
Many thanks shylock0 for taking your time to read my comment and responding. Here is my response:
shylock0 wrote:
"This makes a couple of interesting assumptions:
1) Women do not like sex
2) All porn involves multiple-penetration
3) Pornography inherently involves children
4) All pornography is forced"
Wrong on all the four points:
1) Sex and Porn are two distinctly different things. Porn being only a depiction of specific sexual acts in film or graphic format. And there is NO presumption of whether or not men or women like or do not like sex.
2) Again inaccurate since saying "heroin is a drug" does not mean that the term drug is exhausted by heroin. One has a multiplicity of choices like LSD, Opium, Ecstasy etc, which constitute a subset of drugs, just like "multiple-penetration", facial, deepthroat, bondage, etc etc etc etc constitute subsets of what goes by the name of Pornography.
Your use of the term "multiple-penetration" seems like a sanitised way of describing a particularly degrading and non-enjoyable activity for the person (whether male or female) who is "performing" it, and may or may not be distasteful/enjoyable for viewer. In that way it pairs well with the term Ecstasy (or Lucky Strike if we take an example of a cigarette brand) which are just sanitised words created to hide something different underneath. (I view that phenomenon as newspeak).
3) Again wrong. No such presumption. I specifically mention children AND adults in my post. Legality or illegality of children in Porn is also not my concerns in the present context, since I do not identify illegal with immoral/harmful/evil. Smoking and tobacco industry are perfectly legal but remain harmful.
Though it IS my presumption that most of the widely sought after porn involves children, followed by different degrees of degrading porn like deepthroat, facials, bondage, racist, m-p, etc etc. How do I know the extent of all this. Answer is I do not know, but simply presume, which may be wrong, but I will need enough credible evidence to change my idea.
4) Here we seem to have a different opinion of what is force. Yes I do consider all porn to be forced, whether by brute force or by force of money. But this is a matter of opinion, which we can debate perhaps some other time. I also make a distinction between erotics and porn, but I must admit that I do not have a mathematically accurate line to distinguish between the two.
Arguments:
"Let's consider a few other arguments.
1) Women usually make 10 times as much, and up to 100 times as much, per sex scene as the male actors do.
2) Female porn stars are some of the richest people in Los Angeles.
3) On top of that, many use their income to pursue higher education, and often return as executives in the industry."
All the above three do not look like arguments to me. They are more like value statements. Since I do not accept money, fame or an executive position to be the measure of achievement, these are irrelevant for me. I could become a multi-millionaire by smuggling "finest quality heroin" or "arms" from XYZ to ABC, calculating
- how it will sit with individual laws in different countries,
- or its links with some other goals,
BUT will that be worth doing it? (remember Oliver North, John Poindexter, Ronald Reagan etc.) Not according to my value system.
In this case we can hardly make a rational discussion since in my view, values are not necessarily based on logic and rationality. Since you might see some other presumption in my talk about value, let me assure you that by referring to those values, I do not intend to say those values make my position better or more ethical. It is just different.
4) "Why shouldn't women be given that opportunity?"
Again I do not accept degradation as an "opportunity", another sanitised word to replace some not-so-nice-looking word. Besides this "opportunity" is nothing very new. Sure the scale, scope and "level of payment" has changed in accordance with the law of demand and supply, but in itself this "opportunity" is nothing new, and in accordance with the laws of demand and supply and higher stakes, the extent of brute force has increased not decreased in recent past in my opinion.
5) "Forced pornography, like forced prostitution, is a thing of the past."
Hardly true, even if I take *force* to be only brute physical force. Perhaps you are looking at this only in terms of what you see in the US. Even in the US a lot is hidden, but it may be better than many other places in the world. Though many in Northern Europe would believe that we have a better situation when it comes to protect women from forced pornography and prostitution. Though I do not have any statistics to show the exact extent, I am sure that it not a thing of the past. BBC has in the past few years shown a number of documentaries looking at women smuggled from Eastern Europe and forced into porn industry and prostitution.
6) "Women might be led to believe that they don't have other choices, but that's their fault, not ours."
Actually I was not thinking about fault, since it is a much more complex issue requiring a complex approach. All I was trying to say in my post was to also look at the issue not only from the position of the viewer, but from the point of view of the "performer" too.
"The argument put forth by kedi is the same feminist argument set forth in the 1970s. The world has changed since then. Though pornography remains potentially exploitative (and therefore "evil"), tobacco is intrinsically exploitative. "
The ideas put forth by shylock0 seem to be influenced by the PR and propaganda of the Porn industry, which is at least as ruthless as Tobacco industry, if not more.
The points in two previous sentences are only evaluative statements, which simply try to put each other in a pre-defined framework. Opinion versus Opinion.
Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker of English, and may fail to put forth my ideas in proper English, which may lead to mis-interpretation. Please do try to ask/clarify what I mean before flaming or biting.
Most of the posts I have read so far seem to believe that porn is not evil, basically because it does not harm or kill.
I think that view is based on taking into consideration only the "viewer" side of porn.
I tend to think that porn is evil/wrong/harmful basically if looked at from the point of view of people who are forced (sometimes with brute physical force, but often with force and power of money) in "performing" it.
How many of us would like a couple of dildos/dicks stuffed into all of our holes, and cum showering our faces? On top of that these so-called actors are supposed show that they like and enjoy it.
The degradation meted out not only on children but also adults in pornography (which is different from eroticism) is worse than being killed, because it kills one again and again for the rest of ones life.
That some people enjoy seeing all that and are not killed watching pornography is perhaps a less relevant point.
Quantum Physicist and Philosopher David Bohm, born in Pennsylvania in 1917 died in England in 1992, a contemporary of Einstein and a student of Openheimer, wrote what many physicists consider to be a model textbook on quantum mechanics in 1950.
/ 0/26DAA D8A936EA8D680256816005EB1D6/
According to this web site:
http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf
Bohm was also the founder of MITs DIALOGUE project, which somehow seems to be linked to or behind the OpenCourseware project.
"The ability to perceive or think differently is more important than the knowledge gained." David Bohm.
Excerpts from an interview with David Bohm:
Omni: Yet you've said that quantum mechanics doesn't provide a clear picture of nature. What do you mean?
Bohm: The main problem is that quantum mechanics gives only the probability of an experimental result. Neither the decay of an atomic nucleus nor the fact that it decays at one moment and not another can be properly pictured within the theory. It can only enable you to predict statistically the results of various experiments.
Physics has changed from its earlier form, when it tried to explain things and give some physical picture. Now the essence is regarded as mathematical. It's felt the truth is in the formulas. Now they may find an algorithm by which they hope to explain a wider range of experimental results, but it will still have inconsistencies. They hope that they can eventually explain all the results that could be gotten, but that is only a hope.
Omni: How did the founders of quantum mechanics initially receive your book Quantum Theory?
Bohm: In the Fifties, when I sent it around to various physicists-including [Niels] Bohr, Einstein, and [Wolfgangl Pauli--Bohr didn't answer, but Pauli liked it. Einstein sent me a message that he'd like to talk with me. When we met he said the book had done about as well as you could do with quantum mechanics. But he was still not convinced it was a satisfactory theory.
susano_otter wrote: With blatant disregard for Godwin's Law, I'll bite:
Good, that is what I expected and wished. I dislike Hitler as much as any average human being.
"Why on earth would I want to thank Hitler for that? If he hadn't started his genocidal campaign, Einstein would have been free to exercise his great intellect in Germany, remaining intimately connected to the thriving and lively European physics community. Hitler's bigotry and warmongering shattered this community, drove some of the best minds in Physics to the ends of the earth, disrupted their communication with each other... and that's not the worst of it:"
Good, No one should thank Hitler.
I only wrote that to show the pointlessness of contention of 5KVGhost when he said:
"Einstein's work was also instrumental, of course, in giving the US an early lead on the development of atomic weapons."
If "...in giving the US an early lead" was the key, then one should thank who caused that lead possible. Since I do not believe in specualtive statements in history (like if Hitler would not have been born, like if King of England had not been so opperessive, like if Sweden had developed nuclear bomb, like if Kennedy was not asasinated, like if Reagan had not survived the assasination attempt, etc etc), the ususal cause and effect ideas do not apply in history.
"On another note, the U.S. today is no healthier than Nazi Germany under Hitler? What tipped you off? Was it the genocidal death camps scattered across our heartland?"
This is where I feel like biting but will not bite.
How about taking a look at Germany right before Hitler got elected? He got elected with more votes, not less as in present day US. He also could increase his votes from 14 to 38 million after being in power for a year or so. I am not suggesting that Bush is Hitler, but pointing to a direction things may take. BTW Einstein left Germany already before Hitler came to power and started his genocidal campaign.
What I was and am trying to say is that Germany was "unhealthy for the world as a whole" then just like the US is "unhealthy for the world as a whole" now, because of not what they did to their own citizens (which is not the current discussion), but what and why they are doing to the world. Yes I do think present Germany is more healthy for the world than present US.
I think we will talk to each other again when a more relevant topic comes up.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a native speaker of English, so my experessions may not be conveying what I really mean. I will only have to try again and again to expalin what I mean, even though that is not a guarantee of calrifying everything.
kedi
5KVGhost wrote: "Einstein's work was also instrumental, of course, in giving the US an early lead on the development of atomic weapons. Had history gone differently that advantage may have belonged to Germany, the USSR, or even Japan. Given the balance of power and the regimes in charge at the time that would have been rather unhealthy for the world as a whole."
/.
I don't agree with the underlying belief that US was and is healthier.
This line of discussion is interesting but will be deemed off topic by the rest, but I would make one suggestion: How about thanking Hitler for taking power in January 1933, thus compelling Einstein not to return to Germany? Wouldn't that be acknowledgment of Hitler's contribution to "civilization". Or should one also thank FBI for not tightening the screw enough on him after the war, so as to force him to leave again to somewhere else? Stories about "relationship" of Einstein and the FBI have been posted earlier on
kedi
Mr_Dyqik wrote: "Einstein's first Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect, which clarified the basic physics of how metals interact with light, and how electrons behavein materials. These results go straight into semiconductor physics, and electron guns in CRTs. Are the TV and semiconductor device industries a big enough return?"
Big enough return for whom? For society/humanity yes, for companies who made money out of it without paying for the findings yes, but for Einstein not in monetary terms. I wonder if he could have got any funding for testing his theories in the beginning of last century.
Thanks for educating me on wider uses of Einstein's work though.
Since you seem to argue that "Also, possibly no nuclear power,.." I have a question: could one argue and calculate the flip side of the nuclear power and blame Einstein for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, other smaller accidents and effects hidden from public eye? No Einstein - No Hiroshima - No Chernobyl. I am not stating anything here, just posing a simple question.
kedi
dcollins wrote: Einstein's most important results had no research investment funding it whatsoever. Hence, it does not serve as a counterexample to an assertion about "research investment".
The point I was trying to make is that if Einstein had had to justify his research on the basis of producing greater value, he would possibly had not got the funding if he rquired it, since there was no direct possibility of making money out of it then.
In my original post, as I admitted in another post, I did not correctly read Prof. Robert Laughlin's article, who is actually saying what I wanted to say.
AC wrote: "I think you have slightly missed the point of that sentence. The sentence is pointing out that research for research's sake isn't very welcome in the CORPORATE environment where a greater return on investment is desired. (The point being, that science is BECOMING too corporate-centric as opposed to more "expanding the boundaries of human knoweldge" centric as it was in the past.) So, you aren't really in dispute."
/ /www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1998/]
Thanks. I re-read the article and realised that you are right. Thanks for pointing that out.
BTW. on searching I found that Prof. Robert B. Laughlin received a Noble Prize in Physics in 1998 [http://large.stanford.edu/rbl/index.htm]
[http:
kedi
From the article: "For a research investment to be justified, it must produce value equal to or greater than that of the investment."
I find this extremely questionable. History is full of scientific discoveries and ideas which were not able to produce equal or greater value for long time. Can anyone enlighten me about the value produced by Einstein's research?
and what would stop "the wanted ones" to manufacture enough false alarms to make whole of this effort a joke?
You are absolutely right in all the four points. Plus not using screen is safer for eyesight.
However many, including myuself, read computer books mostly on screen, because the *find* function works perfectly when you need an answer fast.
I read fiction, poetry and philosophy in dead tree format.
kedi
Why do you need to print those books? Read them on your monitor and they are old already in a few months time anyway.
You can find several O'Reilly books in PDF and HTML on Kazaa. Is it not a similar "loss in possible sell" for them just like software?
kedi
This is great news. Though as many others have already commented, he won't give up, money is just too sweet.
...... sign him for more.
But let us tighten the screw not only on him, but those who might replace him, and actually many others who have not yet become as well known as him. Let us find them all and repeat the same tactics, only at a larger scale.
So don't wait, and don't presume someone else will do it,
I attended the last conference, it was fantastic.
In the sesssion "Security of Open Source Software" Mary Ann (Oracle) raised the point, supported by others, that "more eyes" does not mean "more experienced eyes".
She argued that the fact that Open Source has more eyes looking into the source code does not make it more secure since these eyes are not necessarilly experienced in security issues.
This point may seem logical but is not correct. I think if we take the example of Linux, the "experienced eyes" focused on its security are still more than what could be possible in the confines of one single company. Windows may have all the "experienced eyes" employed by Microsoft, but Linux has many more "experienced eyes" who may or may not be working for IBM, HP, RedHat, etc etc, in addition to Hackers at Large.
kedi
>> "A Perhaps the Americans should worry more about getting a more open *Government* before worrying about getting more open *software*. Even the Penguin can't do much against a Total Information Awareness-empowered nanny state."
Though I agree with you in pointing this out to Americans, I think it is not very wise to put different initiatives and ideas in opposition to each other. To worry about *open software* need not be contraposed to worry about *open Government*.
In this particular case I tend to believe that a concern for *free and open source software* is actually a step towards a more open Government anywhere not just in the US, especially so if one thinks in terms of ethical motivations behind free and open source movements.
kedi
From http://www.spywareinfo.com/
"Some weeks ago, the developer for the Phoenix browser posted to the project's message boards that they had been contacted by Phoenix Tech about their use of their "trademark". Apparently Phoenix Tech claims to have trademarked the word "Phoenix".
I emailed Phoenix Tech to ask them under what name and/or number did they have the word "phoenix" registered since I could not find it at the patent office. I asked them what legal actions they intended to take in regards to the Phoenix browser. I asked them what they intended to do about all of these organizations, who also use the word "phoenix". Would you be shocked to discover that they refused to answer?"
kedi
shri said >> I do not in my wildest dreams want to undermine the authors, but would be good to know who they were.
c hi-dis cuss
Why not join their mailing list and check who they are:
http://symonds.net/mailman/listinfo/fsug-ko
rseuhs wrote >>In industrial countries where labour is expensive, like Germany and Japan, Linux is making inroads on desktops and has already marginalized Windows on Servers:
Japan [securityspace.com]
Germany [securityspace.com] >>
The data available at [securityspace.com] shows only the the share of Apache, not Linux - at leat I could not find it.
JK
"There is a great deal of burnout being created by users demanding features in software that the developer isn't being paid for, too. KDE has mostly escaped this thus far, however there is some speculation that GNOME has more momentum because it's the underdog. Let's hope these two projects can continue to bring great things to the Linux desktop."
I think KDE and GNOME should come to a gentelmen's agreement: ONE for Geeks and Nerds, but the other for mere mortals like me. That way both teams can meet the expectations of their "own" users better.